These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15064663)

  • 1. Visualization of stimulation patterns in cochlear implants: application to event-related potentials (P300) in cochlear implant users.
    Mühler R; Ziese M; Kevanishvili Z; Schmidt M; von Specht H
    Ear Hear; 2004 Apr; 25(2):186-90. PubMed ID: 15064663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Registering event-related auditory potentials (P300) in patients with cochlear implants].
    Mühler R; Ziese M; von Specht H
    Z Med Phys; 2003; 13(2):84-90. PubMed ID: 12868333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant listeners via single electrode stimulation in relation to speech perception.
    Liebscher T; Alberter K; Hoppe U
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Dec; 57(12):933-940. PubMed ID: 30295156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential.
    Abbas PJ; Hughes ML; Brown CJ; Miller CA; South H
    Audiol Neurootol; 2004; 9(4):203-13. PubMed ID: 15205548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Using Neural Response Telemetry to Monitor Physiological Responses to Acoustic Stimulation in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.
    Abbas PJ; Tejani VD; Scheperle RA; Brown CJ
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(4):409-425. PubMed ID: 28085738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Auditory steady-state responses in cochlear implant users: Effect of modulation frequency and stimulation artifacts.
    Gransier R; Deprez H; Hofmann M; Moonen M; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2016 May; 335():149-160. PubMed ID: 26994660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Interaural stimulation timing in single sided deaf cochlear implant users.
    Zirn S; Arndt S; Aschendorff A; Wesarg T
    Hear Res; 2015 Oct; 328():148-56. PubMed ID: 26302945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Across-site patterns of electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude-growth functions in multichannel cochlear implant recipients and the effects of the interphase gap.
    Schvartz-Leyzac KC; Pfingst BE
    Hear Res; 2016 Nov; 341():50-65. PubMed ID: 27521841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Relationship between auditory perception skills and mismatch negativity recorded in free field in cochlear-implant users.
    Roman S; Canévet G; Marquis P; Triglia JM; Liégeois-Chauvel C
    Hear Res; 2005 Mar; 201(1-2):10-20. PubMed ID: 15721556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The adaptive pattern of the late auditory evoked potential elicited by repeated stimuli in cochlear implant users.
    Zhang F; Anderson J; Samy R; Houston L
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Apr; 49(4):277-85. PubMed ID: 20151878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.
    Scheperle RA; Tejani VD; Omtvedt JK; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Oleson JJ; Ozanne MV
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():45-57. PubMed ID: 28432874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Optimizing stimulation parameters to record electrically evoked cortical auditory potentials in cochlear implant users.
    Kranick M; Wagner L; Plontke S; Rahne T
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2021 May; 22(3):121-127. PubMed ID: 33297872
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Characterizing responses from auditory cortex in young people with several years of cochlear implant experience.
    Gordon KA; Tanaka S; Wong DD; Papsin BC
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2008 Oct; 119(10):2347-62. PubMed ID: 18752993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of an artifact reduction strategy for electrically evoked auditory steady-state responses: Simulations and measurements.
    Bahmer A; Pieper S; Baumann U
    J Neurosci Methods; 2018 Feb; 296():57-68. PubMed ID: 29291927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Speech-evoked cognitive P300 potentials in cochlear implant recipients.
    Micco AG; Kraus N; Koch DB; McGee TJ; Carrell TD; Sharma A; Nicol T; Wiet RJ
    Am J Otol; 1995 Jul; 16(4):514-20. PubMed ID: 8588653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparing eSRT and eCAP measurements in pediatric MED-EL cochlear implant users.
    Kosaner J; Spitzer P; Bayguzina S; Gultekin M; Behar LA
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2018 May; 19(3):153-161. PubMed ID: 29291688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Adult Cochlear Implant Users Are Able to Discriminate Basic Tonal Features in Musical Patterns: Evidence From Event-related Potentials.
    Hahne A; Mainka A; Leuner A; Mürbe D
    Otol Neurotol; 2016 Oct; 37(9):e360-8. PubMed ID: 27631660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cochlear response telemetry: intracochlear electrocochleography via cochlear implant neural response telemetry pilot study results.
    Campbell L; Kaicer A; Briggs R; O'Leary S
    Otol Neurotol; 2015 Mar; 36(3):399-405. PubMed ID: 25473960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Role of Auditory Evoked Potentials in the Context of Cochlear Implant Provision.
    Hoth S; Dziemba OC
    Otol Neurotol; 2017 Dec; 38(10):e522-e530. PubMed ID: 29135872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The mismatch negativity in cochlear implant users.
    Ponton CW; Don M
    Ear Hear; 1995 Feb; 16(1):131-46. PubMed ID: 7774766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.